Environmental justice in conservation philanthropy: Do intermediary organizations help?

IF 4.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Jeffrey E. Blackwatters , Michele Betsill , Eugene Eperiam , Trina Leberer , Geraldine Rengiil , Elizabeth Terk , Rebecca L. Gruby
{"title":"Environmental justice in conservation philanthropy: Do intermediary organizations help?","authors":"Jeffrey E. Blackwatters ,&nbsp;Michele Betsill ,&nbsp;Eugene Eperiam ,&nbsp;Trina Leberer ,&nbsp;Geraldine Rengiil ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Terk ,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Gruby","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many private philanthropic foundations are engaging intermediary organizations as a strategy to better integrate justice into their grantmaking. This study examines how intermediary organizations work in practice and how they can or cannot contribute to justice in conservation funding. We employed Q methodology and a knowledge co-production approach to examine grantees’ experiences of justice in their grantmaking relationship with a funding intermediary, the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT). Using a collaborative process of knowledge creation and interpretation, we identified three distinct perspectives: 1. <em>Intermediaries bridge gaps in justice</em>; 2. <em>Intermediaries are helpful but constrained</em>; and 3. <em>Intermediaries cannot solve injustice in conservation</em> <em>funding</em>. Our findings indicate that while intermediaries can play a vital role in advancing justice in grant-making relationships, they are not a silver bullet for addressing injustices that are inherent to funding dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100232"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth System Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589811624000326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many private philanthropic foundations are engaging intermediary organizations as a strategy to better integrate justice into their grantmaking. This study examines how intermediary organizations work in practice and how they can or cannot contribute to justice in conservation funding. We employed Q methodology and a knowledge co-production approach to examine grantees’ experiences of justice in their grantmaking relationship with a funding intermediary, the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT). Using a collaborative process of knowledge creation and interpretation, we identified three distinct perspectives: 1. Intermediaries bridge gaps in justice; 2. Intermediaries are helpful but constrained; and 3. Intermediaries cannot solve injustice in conservation funding. Our findings indicate that while intermediaries can play a vital role in advancing justice in grant-making relationships, they are not a silver bullet for addressing injustices that are inherent to funding dynamics.
环保慈善中的环境正义:中介组织有帮助吗?
许多私人慈善基金会正在与中介机构合作,将其作为一种策略,以更好地将正义融入其资助中。本研究考察了中介组织在实践中如何工作,以及它们如何能够或不能在保护资金方面为正义做出贡献。我们采用Q方法和知识合作生产方法来检查受助者在与资助中介机构密克罗尼西亚保护信托基金(MCT)的资助关系中的司法经验。使用知识创造和解释的协作过程,我们确定了三个不同的视角:1。中介机构弥合了司法鸿沟;2. 中介是有帮助的,但受到限制;和3。中介机构无法解决保护资金的不公正问题。我们的研究结果表明,虽然中介机构可以在促进资助关系的公正方面发挥至关重要的作用,但它们并不是解决资助动态中固有的不公正问题的灵丹妙药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信